Given how fundamentally important genitals are, why would evolution favour soft, fragile testicles instead of something far more protected and safe? (human question obviously). Seems that evolutionary processes would favour those that are less likely to get damaged since they would survive to pass on their genes, so it makes little sense. The only solution I thought was that we protect them so well it hasn't been exposed to evolutionary pressures, but nevertheless...
-
I am not sure there is any evidence that the testicles are "soft, fragile" or not "protected." In fact, they are quite well protected. Injuries to them are not that common. Even when a soccer ball hits the area at high velocity with much force, there is usually no permanent damage. One is more likely to get a concussion, for example, than to have damaged testicles, even when one's playing a contact sport like rugby or American football.
-
IT'S NOT LIKE EVERYTHING HAS TO HAVE HARD TESTICLES
it's just what suit the environment..... first the soft testicled animals were created ( accoring to evolition) , and then they improved to become hard enough... but the soft ones still can live in specific areas survive.....
most of the times this is sexual selection( they just selected for the appearance and sound)
like peacocks..peahens choose peacocks by looking and their brightness....if they are bright then they get eaten by the predators...but to make more population , they just reproduce more..... this is just like that
it's just what suit the environment..... first the soft testicled animals were created ( accoring to evolition) , and then they improved to become hard enough... but the soft ones still can live in specific areas survive.....
most of the times this is sexual selection( they just selected for the appearance and sound)
like peacocks..peahens choose peacocks by looking and their brightness....if they are bright then they get eaten by the predators...but to make more population , they just reproduce more..... this is just like that